Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Polygon sold to Valnet, hit with major layoffs

Per Kotaku. Nice to know the state of games journalism remains as healthy as ever. We'll need to update Polygon's place on the page at some point; as well as be careful how we use them for citations going forward. -- 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:VG/S should do something like what WP:RSPSS does and write separate entries for sources by time period. I.e. we currently have Polygon, but we could have Polygon (-May 2025) and Polygon (May 2025-), so that they can go in separate sections. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I did a basic update splitting them by date to flag the sale but left them together under reliable sources for the moment; I think the WP:RSPSS style of differentiating time periods is useful. Also, The Verge should probably get its own entry since it was coupled with the Vox-owned Polygon as reliable. What I said over at WT:VG is that it feels a bit like Kotaku where we don't know to what extent (or how fast) there will be editorial deterioration so case-by-case evaluation until there's been enough change for an outlet wide re-evaluation. Hopefully there will be good articles in the future but I'm assuming editors will have to weed out the crap that is Valnet's standard to find them. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

We shouldn't be moving it until we have a chance to assess post sale articles look like. And even if those are shit, we should have a line for pre sale Polygon as being just fine. (eg Polygon would appear twice on the page) Masem (t) 18:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, it looks dire, but we don't need make things future-proof already. This new iterations hasn't even put out anything that could even be reviewed yet, right? Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I get the vision behind wanting to wait, but most of their editorial team was fired. And we know what Valnet does to properties that it owns and how it treats its freelance writers that will likely replace them. Not even when Valnet bought out Hardcore Gamer do I think they fired most of their writers. I don't necessarily think it'd be jumping the gun too much to go ahead and apply the same general restrictions on other Valnet sources. Maybe not reclassify it entirely, but I think you get my point. λ NegativeMP1 22:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I get it, I do. I just don't think we can justify it yet. There is literally not any new output or editorial policy to review yet... Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with NegativeMP1. Everyone is gone. No matter who starts posting again (and whenever that starts happening), it is simply not the same website. This isn't a Ship of Theseus situation. The writers are the website and the writers are gone. Any zombie version of the website that returns has to be evaluated anew regardless. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh I agree, it definitely needs re-evaluation. I'm just saying that there's no new output to review yet. All it'll take is one person to send me the first "Top 57 Mario characters as generated by Polygonbot" article and I'll probably be ready too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Then why do we list Hardcore Gamer only in the Valnet section, if it's assessed as reliable pre and post Valnet? Seems inconsistent to me. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually CBR is a better example: reliable pre-Valnet, unreliable post-Valnet. So CBR should be listed twice? --Mika1h (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, I think splitting CBR based on time period (in the WP:RSPSS style) makes the most sense; it'll help differentiate when the source was most reliable and the discussions on each iteration of the outlet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

My suggest would be to have one Valnet line with all the sites under it instead of separate lines, while all those that were good pre-valnet kept as individual lines with clear indication of the date that it was acquired and pointing to the Valnet line before. In other words, sites like CBR and Polygon would be listed twice but once for when they were a good site, and once as covered by the Valnet catchall. Masem (t) 14:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mika1h: I think Polygon should have two entries (Vox Media era & then the Valnet era). When you collapsed it into one entry under Valent, you also removed The Verge. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I added The Verge to the technology section. I assume it's a non-controversial site to add despite it not being discussed in length here. --Mika1h (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been reading around and apparently Polygon's quality had been going down for years before the sale. Maybe instead of a hard "pre-Valnet" and "post-Valnet" listing, there would be an inbetween period that discusses this? Something like WP:ROLLINGSTONE which mentions the gradual decline in quality of its politics/culture coverage as opposed to there being a hard cutoff. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

May I also see what you've been reading about Polygon's quality declining? Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on what exactly? I can't tell what you're alluding to. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Mostly speculation on Reddit so take it with a grain of salt. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, absolutely not. The brand getting sold and the entire staff getting fired makes for a much clearer point of delineation than "some randos thought it wasn't as good as it used to be". -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno why we're in such a hurry to make things worse. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't be going off of social media/Reddit chatter. Too much of that noise is just disgruntled fans upset their game of choice only got an 8.5 out of 10. Stuff that doesn't factor into classifications. They may just be referring to how they may have descended into the clickbait headline stuff - (Headline:You Won't Believe What Link is Wearing in this Preview Video Article: A red tunic.) But sadly the whole industry now seems to dabble in that to varying degrees these days... Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Polygon's headlines for the past few years have been clickbait garbage but from my reading the actual articles themselves were more than fine. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 16:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

We always ignore headlines in judging reliable sources. Of course, a source that exclusively uses clickbait headlines is a good sign of trouble, but I don't think I'd judge polygon's average headlines like that. There are far worse but otherwise good RSes that engaging in "This stunning highly-rated game just hit this milestone"-type crap. Masem (t) 17:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

that was my entire point JOEBRO⁶⁴ 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.polygon.com/opinion/597869/gta-6-trailer-2-lucia-gta-5-comparison - First article I've read from them since the change. Written by one of the few not laid off, I believe, and reads much like their prior work. I'm not saying everything's alright, just saying first spot-checked source is fine so far. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.polygon.com/opinion/597835/gta-6-trailer-no-kissing Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

MoeGamer

Find video game sources: "MoeGamer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo Ran across this source recently, and after doing some digging found there was a discussion here in the past. While I gather despite the author's excessive pedigree, he is basically a self-published source. However at the same time I'd like to suggest that with those credentials, he could be a viable source for his editorial opinion on certain subjects to help establish notability (i.e. he's written pretty extensively on a lot of fictional characters, and even some in the vtubing field). I think this could be a good source for helping establish WP:THREE and veering a bit more away from the usual Valnet drivel. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Situationally reliable. Considering the author's pedigree and his coverage of topics often overlooked by mainstream English-language sources, I think this site should qualify as an WP:EXPERTSPS. No judgment as yet as to whether it should be considered as contributing to demonstrating notability, but it should absolutely be permissible to flesh out articles on topics that have had their notability already soundly established by other sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

After further discussion below, I'm inclined to reinforce my opinion that MoeGamer is only situationally usable for articles on topics that are already proven to be notable, and should not count towards notability. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliable. I feel comfortable that this author is a trustworthy source, as he has significant credentials with a large number of reliable sources. This suggests to me that he does not have issues with factual accuracy issues or other problems. Now, it's not the greatest source in the world since it is a SME instead of a site with an editorial department, but I think there can be gradients of notable versus non-notable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Situational at best. He was fired from USgamer and burned a lot of bridges on the way out. I recall he had a lot of unkind things to say when USgamer was shutting down, but he appears to have deleted his Twitter and it wasn't archived. He hasn't had an industry job since 2014. I find that the results of the previous discussion still hold true: it's essentially a self-published blog/Wordpress site. I don't see a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS to elevate it above consideration at that level. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's one sided of course but some of his comments on USGamer are in this article: https://moegamer.net/2024/03/22/the-enshittification-of-the-video-games-press/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable per DarkeruTomoe's findings below and at here. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find ethics policy but I see a request for game codes in the sidebar: Review copies of games are gratefully accepted! Get in touch if you'd like to submit your title for consideration. There's some alarming points raised by other participants – i.e., fired by his last employer and no industry role in 9 years – that make it challenging for me to agree with a Situational vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Did some digging and I can't find a confirmation on why he was let go, however VG247 still lists him as a contributor and he was writing for them up until 2021 (of note, VG247 inherited USGamer's content, so if there was particularly significant bad blood it would be strange for them to bring him back on). He has also worked at RiceDigital as an editor, a website we had discussed here not too long ago as situational depending on the author's credentials. So has remained in the industry at least in the last few years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit rough to see that the 2021 contribution was a guide for a little-known title rather than actual journalism, but makes me feel a bit better. Still have concerns about the editorial policy but I don't know this reporter so wanted to comment rather than vote. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The VG247 articles attributed to Davison post-2014 appear to be miscategorized/mislabeled articles from the USgamer migration. For example, the Saints Row IV review is actually by Mike Williams, originally posted on August 15, 2013. The Steins;Gate guide is misdated; the guide was originally published on April 24, 2014. Why the Xbox Failed in Japan is actually by Wesley Yin-Poole, published on Eurogamer on December 14, 2012. I did a few more spot checks and they're all either misattributed to him or have the wrong date entered. He does not actually appear to have done any work for VG247. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers @Kung Fu Man @Cukie Gherkin since you all appear to be taking his VG247 contributor page at face value in the discussion below. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Him requesting game codes isn't of much concern to me; that seems pretty normal for independent games writers trying to get eyeballs on their work. I would have to see some direct confirmation of his specific grievance with USGamer and the reasons why they dropped him to consider downgrading my vote. Even if it's true, I'd probably only change my vote to situationally useful only for opinions with the additional stipulation that he doesn't count for notability, unless the exact details of the situation appear to egregiously disqualify him. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting game codes is fine. Having that on the page while not indicating if they accept money in exchange for reviews? Not fine. That's why I'm hesitant to agree with "Situational" for notability. In general, I have concerns about any publication without editorial or ethics guidelines. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the question of bias by journalists for a game they got for free or a company they're looking to appease is at all unusual in this industry. Perhaps the most notable games journalist, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired for giving a bad review during a period where GameSpot's notability was never put into question. I don't think that advertising that you accept review codes or whatever such thing is indicative of anything worse than standard industry practice. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Do they print retractions for errors? Do they have editorial oversight to avoid plagiarism? If I email this outlet and offer them £10k to review my game, will they do it? You cannot answer any of these questions because the publication does not give them. To repeat: "I accept game codes" is not the problem. Not having an answer to "Do you accept bribes?" can signify a problem. It's a blog with no editorial oversight. He's barely written 3 articles in 5 years and one was a guide, which is not an SME. You responded to a comment I didn't write. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

While I could get that, I do think at the same time if someone is this involved in the industry one would assume their reputation would not be something they'd want to discard so willingly. I understand being wary of a source (and yes I get I'm going to look at said source more favorably given I'm suggesting it), but surely you can understand that can come across as an excessive level of scrutiny...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it's a weird hypothetical based on nothing, in opposition to cause to believe there's no ethical concerns. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Editor 1: "This guy was fired from his last role and has not had a perm role in years" Editor 2: "To support notability, it'd make me feel better if they had an ethics policy, like saying they don't accept pay-for-reviews" Editor 3: "Weird hypotheticals based on nothing" — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

You posted ~4 reviews and 1 guide published over a 5-year period. Of all the articles listed at the bio Cukie Gherkin linked, none were published beyond 2020. When you posted these, I said it made me feel a little better. It didn't make me feel much better because Axel said he was fired from last journalist role. All I did was ask follow-up questions about editorial policy. If that's read as excessive scrutiny, I don't know what to tell you. I won't opine any further on this; what a disheartening chain. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe anything I said there requires that sort of reaction. I simply pointed out it felt weird to assume the worst of a writer that has worked for this many outlets (one of the most recent in an editorial capacity) and has a reputation to preserve, let alone the valid concerns Axem brought up seemed dispelled by his continued work on VG247 after USGamer's downfall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really confused, because it honestly feels like you're fighting shadows right now. I'm responding to your points and having a disagreement with what you are saying, that's the only thing happening. As far as the weird hypothetical goes, the hypothetical I referred to was that he may take money to give positive review scores, not concerns about him in general. There's simply no evidence that's something he ever did in his career, and no evidence that the reason he was fired had anything to do with that. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The articles and guides from post-2014 are all misattributed or misdated. See my comment above. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Following this comment from Axel, Unreliable. The subject has published 4 articles in 6 years and has not held a journalism role since fired from USgamer. The barrier to be an "SME" is not that high, but this does not meet it. The publication's lack of editorial standards or policies makes this a blog of no pedigree. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

While I'm sceptical of the source myself, I can't think of many sources including those accepted as reliable here who directly state "We don't accept bribes or money for reviews". DarkeruTomoe (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Situationally reliable - Only because Pete Davison not only worked on USgamer and Rice Digital, but he also worked on magazines dedicated to Atari platforms decades ago, giving MoeGamer a bit of a leg to stand on. (P.S. The Atari magazine was Page 6/New Atari User. He also worked for PC Zone and Official Nintendo Magazine). Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Situational - Whilst I am incline to agree with Axem, I do believe that the experience and history on display here as mentioned by Roberth above qualifies this source as usable for this WikiProject. CaptainGalaxy 03:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Same as The Jimquisition, in the vein of WP:RSOPINION: fine for attributed opinions, shouldn't be cited for facts or used to demonstrate notability. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • @TheJoebro64: Why wouldn't it be able to count for notability? Like it Valnet it's because they often take an "anything goes" approach or churnalism. And with Sterling...well a lot of it is stuff interwoven with her own opinion and stuff she's presenting as facts. But couldn't this constitute sigcov for a potential WP:THREE if it's covering individual items?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

    Most of the site seems to be opinionated blogging and it's a one-man operation with seemingly no editorial oversight, which gives me pause. Davison's credentials are decent, so I don't think it should be marked as blanket unreliable, but I think it'd set a bad precedent to declare the personal blog of a writer who hasn't done major RS writing in several years on the same level as stuff like VGC and Time Extension—especially considering that he apparently left his last major position at an RS under questionable circumstances. Not to mention that people will complain that we don't consider Sterling's drivel fully reliable. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 02:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable

While the author has some history in the area, it's essentially his personal website with no editorial oversight or policies.

I'm also sceptical on the ethics side due to his role at Rice Digital in positively covering PQube games (PQube's Head of Publishing is the founder of Rice Digital). This was discussed before.

I can't find any significant UseByOthers of the website.

He has some good work, especially the articles on Atelier which are linked on their Wikipedia pages, but alongside the concerns above I'm not seeing many arguments to say it's reliable other than he used to write for places considered reliable long ago and even then he seemingly got fired from one of them. These days he writes manuals and stuff for Evercade if his Youtube channel's about is up to date. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely disqualifying. Changed my stance above. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Gamurs Network pivot to slop/guides

Layoffs and pivot to slop per Aftermath report. Escapist seems to be all guides now. Same with Destructoid. Siliconera still has content, but it looks like the All Jenni Lada show (I think she is a solid writer FWIW). Dot Esports is guide city. Upcomer hasn't posted since September 2024. Prima is all guides, but I guess that makes sense for them??? A lot of similar names pop up across all the different sites, which jibes with the Aftermath report, "Former staff also tell us that, despite laying off successive waves of writers throughout 2025, Gamurs has been actively trying to recruit writers from regions like India, the Philippines and the Balkans. Former staff speculated this could be because these workers can be paid less than writers from the US or United Kingdom." Anyway, I doubt anyone here has any illusions about citing any of this stuff as the vast majority of it is unusable on its face. Just posting for completeness' sake. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think Siliconera has gotten bad enough for a downgrade on status, but there definitely has been a drop in quality. I use them less simply because they publish less usable stuff. They used to cover so much about new game announcements and previews that were great for fleshing out articles. Now it's largely either filler junk like this or the more nerdy non-gaming stuff Kotaku pivoted to long ago. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a bottoming-out of Destructoid yet, as the Aftermath article states, it looks like they got some Dotesports editors, which while not the best, aren't necessary slop; they are still generating reviews and news about game updates. but that's one to keep on the list to watch. Masem (t) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like with this steady decline we might consider writing a guide on what to avoid from sites when trying to establish notability for subjects, so people can look for the wheat in the chaff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, we should document and promote best practices. Some examples from other topic domains: Category:Wikipedia reliable source guides. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Ungeek

Find video game sources: "Ungeek" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I found this website while looking for new sources to incorporate into Mobile Suit Gundam GQuuuuuuX and upon scrutinizing it further decided to bring the discussion here rather than to the Anime WikiProject page since video game coverage seems to be their bread and butter.

They appear to have some helpful industry connections and have published a few interviews (, , ) and their reviews (, ) seem to be reasonably well written (or at least, not written by LLMs). However, they don't seem to have much of an editorial policy to speak of, with their about page instead saying that they are "the fastest-growing premier geek blog based in the Philippines" and have "worked with various brands as well in helping them expand their reach". Their chief editor, Rob Yatco, states that in his bio that he is a "Freelance Marketer and Strategist by Trade". His LinkedIn profile backs this up, suggesting his previous experience is mostly in PR duties for various companies. Another editor, Nicolo Manaloto (who's apparently been interviewed about his work at the site here), is a staff writer at Epicstream (itself a site of unclear reliability), where his bio claims that he has been cited by Forbes (obviously doesn't count for much without knowing the context) and IGN.

Given all this, I think I'd personally lean situational and would only use them cautiously if there weren't a lot of other options, but wouldn't cite them for anything that could be contentious. I'd like to hear other opinions, though. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, they pass WP:USEDBYOTHERS. But I don't know how well they pass other things we expect from an RS... λ NegativeMP1 16:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Gamezebo publishing unlabeled advertisements

Find video game sources: "Gamezebo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

This site is listed under "reliable sources" but it appears to be publishing unlabeled sponsored news: https://www.gamezebo.com/news/play-officially-licensed-anime-games-on-g123-with-no-registration-or-download-needed/

Note that very similar promotional articles were published on the same day in two other publications, both of which are listed as "friends" of Gamezebo at the bottom of the website: . Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure what made people see it as a reliable source in the first place. The about page is really weak, there's no editorial policy, no staff page, and from a couple author profiles, I see either no biography or a lack of credentials. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming they were reliable for a while but went downhill in the past few years. Gamezebo was acquired in 2016, although it's unclear at what point quality dropped. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It was last discussed in 2009. A lot can happen in 15 years. Apparently it was acquired by iWin in 2016, a mobile/casual game developer. As this is the domain that Gamezebo specializes in, I feel safe in saying everything after the acquisition is owned media and unreliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to say maybe it could be usable before the iWin acquisition...but even looking at it's 2015 version there's next to nothing indicating editorial policy or anything?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I know I used Gamezebo in my early days on Wikipedia, but it doesn't look like I participated in the past discussions linked about it, so I can't recall my old reasons. It feels like I haven't used it in quite some time, maybe because they've been cranking out stuff like this in more recent years. Definitely support downgrading for the last decade since the acquisition at least. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of the stuff on this author's tagline is deeply promotional and probably an unlabeled advertisement. , , , .

Browsing the Internet Archive history here, it looks like the old real content trailed off ~late 2018, and they just put out guides for a while. At some point in late 2022, at least by September, they launched a redesign and started putting out a lot of content. Their older stuff isn't bad. The new stuff is of remarkably low quality. If I were to use quality as an indicator of when editorial standards fell off the cliff, it's 2018. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

DualShockers

Find video game sources: "DualShockers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

DualShockers was previously listed as unreliable but in 2022 was moved to situational. I wanted to revisit that assessment because a recent article of theirs includes a completely-fabricated quote.

The article: https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/ (archived, in case they remove it or edit it: https://web.archive.org/web/20250515233401/https://www.dualshockers.com/bungies-marathon-is-plastered-with-stolen-art-artist-says/)

Confirmation of fabrication: https://x.com/4nt1r34l/status/1923156749726433587

Forgive me if I'm not doing this the right way, I haven't participated in a discussion on this part of WP before, but as soon as I saw this pop up I felt obligated to come here and check how WP treated this as a source. If this still qualifies it as situational, I apologize for wasting time, but it seems pretty significant to completely fabricate a quote, even once, and I feel as though it should be re-listed as unreliable. SlyAceZeta (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'm down with moving DualShockers to unreliable now...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. λ NegativeMP1 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll agree that this source should be unreliable. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Damn, that's shitty. Unreliable as all hell. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Checked out the author of the piece, and... hum. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's not only looking like this guy doesn't exist, he's using multiple accounts on there and pretending to be separate people. If you reverse image search his profile pic from Dualshockers, it links to Anthony Ngugi on a site called TopSpeed that's similar to Dualshockers in layout...and who uses a stock image profile pic there now too.

Antony Ngugi is also an 'author' on Dualshockers. This is weird.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I don't like how this is looking. Now I wonder if other Valnet sources are doing similar things... wouldn't exactly surprise me. λ NegativeMP1 15:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It's possible but I wouldn't assume it outright. Talking with Cukie last night she noticed Dualshockers has very different hiring practices than, say, theGamer.

An aside, DualShockers deleted the original article outright: no retraction or clarification given.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection to downgrading. There wasn't even really the strongest support for situational in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have given them credit if they issued a correction, but downright removing the article when called out for factual inaccuracy is grounds for unreliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This is disappointing. They should probably be moved to unreliable. If someone wanted to make the case for an exception for some older content, I am open to that discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I could *possibly* see it in the case of editors we can actually confirm, but even with interview content I feel it could be questionable to cite them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The fact that they completely fabricated a quote in my opinion should make them completely unusable even for interviews. λ NegativeMP1 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably would keep some time frames within the "situational" area, particularly if it's a sort of opinion piece and not quoting anybody, and also particularly if an article's author has assessed as credible/reliable on an individual basis, but yes it is very disappointing to see a fake quote being used here. Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The thing is this is the second time they've fabricated information, and we have no time frame for when things started going downhill or if perhaps they always were. The fact they clearly are behaving in an unethical manner and that two accounts on there are not real people (Ngugi to boot is not listed as a contributor, 'they' are a staff writer since 2023)...this is not the site you want to rely on for opinions even.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on RSN about Behind The Voice Actors

There is a discussion on the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of BTVA and it's use to support BLP details and DOBs. Any input would be appreciated, see WP:RSN#Restrictions Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Tech4Gamers

Find video game sources: "Tech4Gamers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Tech4Gamers is a publication dedicated to gaming and PC hardware, backed by a team of professionals with years of experience in the field. Details about their staff members: and editorial policy: Kazama16 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclinded to believe this to be a reliable source. They appear to have a qualified team and are open and clear with their editorial policies. Additionally, they are supported by WP:USEBYOTHERS as they have been used by websites such as IGN as seen here. Looking through the articles on their main page, the quality of the articles appear relatively on-par with other sources we deem reliable here. CaptainGalaxy 03:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also consider them reliable per Galaxy's comment. I'm also satisfied by their staff team, about page, and editorial guidelines. I don't see how they don't meet the standards. λ NegativeMP1 20:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The Next Level old archived website

Find video game sources: "The Next Level" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

While researching for the Williams Arcade's Greatest Hits, I stumbled across an interview that Ken Horowitz conducted with the compilation's lead programmer on the Internet Archive. I also saw that Horowitz's work on Sega-16 is listed as reliable given his credentials. Would that apply to his interviews on The Next Level website as well? He has several more on interviews preserved on the Internet Archive that might be useful to others if yes.

Also, in case it helps, several others from the website's staff have written for other reliable gaming sites. Although, it appears they started here.

• Chris Scantleberry - IGN and Otaku USA
• James Cunningham - Hardcore Gamer as well as newspaper and news outlets
• Travis Fahs - IGN and Game Developer

At the very least, I'm curious whether the interview with Vavasour is reliable. If the rest (or parts) of the archived site is useful for others, then great. Appreciate any and all input. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC))

No opinion on the site in general, but note that interviews are typically permissible sources for statements from the interviewed party as a self-published source under the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF, even if the source may not otherwise be authoritative, so long as there is no reason to doubt the interview's authenticity. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I added the content from the interview to the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC))

Quarter to Three

Tom Chick's website. Bruce Geryk (GameSpot, 1UP, CGW, Escapist) also occasionally writes there, expert in wargaming. Cited by some reliable sources: , , , , . Mika1h (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on RSN about CBR.com

There is a discussion on the reliability of CBR.com on RSN. It's listed as 'situational' per WP:VALNET, so subject knowledge of if it's reliable in this particular situation would be helpful. Anyone interested can find it here WP:RSN#CBR and Resident Evil mainline series. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sophia narwitz should be seen as a reputable source and i have issues with the GTA V articles and the like.

Find video game sources: "Sources" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

i am desperately trying to understand why kotaku is a reliable source... when sophia narwitz is not? with her long and large body of work it seems that the dismissal of her is ideologically biased. i've had SUCH A TIME trying to try and give a contrary opinion and the context and dispel other misinformation and provide important context on how Carolyn Petit acted in bad faith and is little different than jack Thompson.

and how the censorship arguably hurts lgbt people like myself.

so i've compiled an internet archive repository of some relevant videos at least as much as it would allow.

i hope it is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisteOsoTruth (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In general, individuals (by which I mean influencers, bloggers, social media users and the like, who aren't acting in a professional capacity or beholden to an editor) aren't considered reliable sources. There are exceptions, but a compelling case that they're a subject-matter expert must be made for consensus to be likely to swing in their favor.

As such, we don't usually consider YouTubers as reliable sources. It doesn't have anything to do with censorship of LGBT content- Wikipedia has quite a lot of LGBT content. From what I can tell, Sophia Narwitz is a YouTuber, and a "senior writer" for Niche Gamer, which we do not consider to be a reliable source of information. (Latest discussion about that was here.)

I wouldn't consider Jack Thompson a reliable source either. I don't know about Carolyn Petit, but she's apparently cited in some articles through her work on GameSpot. Post-2023 content from WP:KOTAKU is generally considered unreliable due to their editorial standards declining, though exceptions have been made on a case-by-case basis. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

As a point about Jack Thompson, we don't cite him directly, but instead use reliable sources that discuss Thompson's issues with GTA, which further were sufficiently widespread to make them WP:DUE for inclusion. The only thing I see even close to reliable cover of Narwitz is run-ins with the "anti-woke" crowd, but that doesn't speak to any of her opinions on GTA V. Masem (t) 00:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who Sophie Narwitz is, but being Niche Gamer staff automatically makes me wary. To make sure it's clear for those who've not looked, they're not just not considered a reliable source of information, but explicitly considered unreliable repeatedly whenever raised due to 1, 2, 3, 4.

I don't get the best impression looking through her Twitter either. Seems to spend more time attacking others than anything. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The topic starter really hasn't advanced any sort of argument in favor of reliability anyways. This just feels like another "Why isn't my favorite Youtuber usable on Wikipedia" argument. It has nothing to do with social or political ideologies, its has to do with WP:RSPYOUTUBE. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Errr have you seen our current stance on Kotaku? It's not even considered wholesale reliable... Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The Nerd Stash

Find video game sources: "The Nerd Stash" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

I wrote zh:瑪薇卡 (Mavuika in Genshin Impact) several days ago. During the source hunt, I found two articles written by Gabriela Jessica in this website: and , both are good critics. Looking at their website, they have public profiles of their team, and a lengthy editorial policy. Looks pretty reliable to me. SuperGrey (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

VentureBeat

A discussion about VentureBeat's reliability is taking place at WP:RS/N. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

As an extension of the discussion, a reminder that GamesBeat is now independent from VentureBeat, which means we'll need to re-evaluate the two sites separately -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how much crypto/blockchain coverage Gamesbeat is still putting out in 2025. Not a good look. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

8bit/Digi

Find video game sources: "8bit/Digi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Anyone have any thoughts on if this is a reliable source? I've come across it in searches a few times but usually ignored it as it looked like a fairly mid-quality blog, but someone added it to the article on The Coffin of Andy and Leyley and that prompted me to investigate it a little more. The bylines of the writers don't indicate any meaningful credentials, but the site does indicate reasonable policies for editorial standards and sponsored content (at least in theory; I haven't closely scrutinized their output to see how well they follow it), so it's at least not got nothing. I guess if I had to say I'd classify it as situational, but I'm not sure. Would like to hear other opinions in any case. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The founder and also the majority writer of the website is a former GamesBeat writer (VentureBeat is listed as a reliable source) and GameSkinny author (listed as an unreliable source). Others include: Stephen Wilds (a writer for Polyon and PC Gamer), Andrew McMahon (IGN, PCGamesN, GameSpot), Abigail Shannon (GamesRadar+), and James Bentley (PCGamer and GamesRadar+) - all of whom seem to be freelance writers. Considering that the site also has an editorial standars page, I'll lean reliable. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Gayming Magazine

Find video game sources: "Gaming Magazine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Any opinions if this should be classified as reliable or unreliable? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a special page for their staff nor editorial guidelines. Looking through their articles, I was able to find the authors but they do not seem to have any past experience in journalism. I see that, however, they have been mentioned in IGN, VentureBeat, PocketGamer, and GamesIndustry.biz, but all of these mentions seem to be related to the Gayming Awards, not their articles, so I'm unsure if WP:USEBYOTHERS would apply here (most likely not). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there may be a USEBYOTHERS case here, though for scholarly citations that I can see more than the ones listed. I think it would be safe to say they should be usable for topics to do with LGBT topics in media. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I just verified that at least one writer worked on Eurogamer: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's great. I wish that they had a page for editorial guidelines, but from what we've gathered and from articles that I've taken a look at, I'd say that they could be considered reliable for LGBTQ+ topics in the gaming space. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

While I also cannot find any editorial policy indicated either directly on their website nor on that of their parent, Gray Jones Media, I can't see any issues with the quality of their content. One of their writers, Aimee Hart, states in their bio that they have written for The Verge and Polygon, so that's something. I'd say situationally usable unless any major disqualifying issues are found. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Find this one to be reliable as per above comments. Having a source that specifically focuses on LGBTQ+ content is very useful, particularly and obviously to related articles. Soulbust (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Adventure Gamers turned into gambling promotion site by new owner

Find video game sources: "Adventure Gamers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Their About page changed recently (before and after). Here's a Reddit thread about it – apparently "Finixio/Clickout Media", a notorious SEO affiliate, is to blame. On the bright side, the old AG staff had already established Adventure Game Hotspot.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"Expanding Into the Gambling Industry" 🤮 Well, unreliable as of the change. Home page is already filled with ads disguised as articles. Probably need to swap all current links with archived versions before all pages inevitably have gambling ads. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Time to make a request at WP:URLREQ?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Added a linkrot request for this website. Fortunately the Wiki impact seems small with only 33 pages using it as a source. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The wrong URL was reported, the real one is used in 800+ articles.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I updated the request right after you flagged the issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Support moving it to unreliable. I don't think it even had the strongest argument for reliability before all this happened. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Seconded. I think we would benefit from revisiting some sources that haven't been discussed in a long time or had improper discussions that considered them "reliable" (e.g. 2 participants in 2006) - just to do a quick wellness check. I might make a list of sources which fall under that soon. λ NegativeMP1 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that (outside Wikipedia) it'd always been widely regarded as reputable and the go-to source on adventure games, with decades' worth of interviews with industry insiders, news, features and reviews.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Adventure Game Hotspot really should be considered to take Adventure Gamers spot on the reliable sources list. Founded by former editor-in-chief, many former writers from AG. Tons of interviews from adventure game developers. Solid about & policies pages. --Mika1h (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I also support moving them to unreliable due to this recent change. As Mika1h said, maybe we should consider AGH to take over their spot? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Their older material could be considered still valid, right? Apparently Jack Allin, the former editor-in-chief, was fired in 2022 which I hear led to a mass staff exodus and a rapid decline, and that date can serve as a cutoff point for reliability. That or when the current owners bought it, there has been casino spam for a while already before the explicit change in the About page.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have happened sometime after May 22, no spam before that date: . --Mika1h (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This one hits hard. To focus on the constructive part, we can make it as unreliable, and preserve the content from before a certain date. With any luck, the writers at that site will be successful in future ventures. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the writers moved onto Adventure Game Hotspot Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It goes farther back than I realized, found this article from December 2024: . --Mika1h (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

May be worthwhile contacting the people who work at the new site to figure out the cutoff point Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

So, J talked to the person who started AGH, and they stated that things went to trash in January 2021. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mika1h: @LaukkuTheGreit: @Vacant0: @Shooterwalker: @Sergecross73: @Sariel Xilo: @Hellknowz: @NegativeMP1: Any objections to calling it unreliable beginning in January 2021? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Also support. λ NegativeMP1 16:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support, with it remaining reliable before that time (it has among other things been praised by Time Extension, an RS, which I as far as I understand contributes to AG's reliability).--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as above, support calling it unreliable starting whenever the mess started. I haven't checked anything in detail, but if people who know what's going on say Jan 2021, then I suppose that is what that is. I suppose there could be conditional use in the period between depending on the author. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Support No strong feelings on exact date. I appreciate the effort to preserve some good content from an older period, while protecting Wikipedia from unreliable content beyond some point. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 Support calling it unreliable after the website was essentially usurped. Similar to Hellknowz & Shooterwalker, I don't have a strong opinion on the exact cutoff date. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

PC Data

Find video game sources: "...PC Data..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · ... LinkTo

Although now defunct this source has been used many times throughout the years (I'm using it myself) so I'm surpised it hasn't been discussed here. I think it should be added reliable defunct sites. IGN , Computer Games Magazine , etc have used this site before. Timur9008 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Esports News UK

Find video game sources: "Esports News UK" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Didn't see this listed in WP:VG/RS at all, nor could I find any previous discussion assessing its reliability. Only mentioned in passing in two previous AFD discussions from 2018 and earlier this year. In the 2018 discussion, it was called "what appears to be a legit secondary source" and "really only one possibly good secondary source" by two separate editors. In the 2025 discussion, on Los Ratones and which ended in a no consensus, the nominator mentioned Esports News UK in their list of "reliable sources focused on esports", and another editor pointed out one of the Esports News UK sources used in the Los Ratones article as being written by "Dom Sacco, an award-winning esports journalist".

I figure we should probably have an actual assessment on this source, given how it is used on various articles including high-profile ones such as League of Legends World Championship, Esports World Cup, University of Warwick, Faker (gamer), One True King, Lando Norris, and even the main Esports article itself. Soulbust (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought I created a discussion here for Esports News UK in the past (but apparently not), and I would have considered them reliable then. It appears that they have expanded into covering online gambling websites as of 2025. Their front page still seems to be the coverage of esports news, which is good, but it's not a shift that fills me with confidence for its reliablility. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 01:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I very well could have missed that when searching for a discussion. I think if others think their expansion into covering online gambling websites causes ENUK to be considered not as reliable, maybe this could be deemed situationally reliable to allow for anything pre-2025 to be acceptable, with anything since 2025 to be considered on a more case-by-case basis. Or perhaps to still consider their non-gambling coverage as reliable? The website seems reliable to me, though I am not as well-versed with it, admittedly. Soulbust (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Gamers With Glasses

Find video game sources: "Gamers With Glasses" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Hi everyone. I need experts here to evaluate on whether this website could be considered reliable or not. They have an "About Us" page, but I think that you all can make better judgment than me about this. Thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this site again, and while I said that I would like second opinions, I'm thinking that it could probably be considered unreliable. The site's contact states that it is a "volunteer-run collective" with no compensation offered. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Inside, Game*Spark, and GameBusiness.jp

Find video game sources: "インサイド" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Find video game sources: "Game*Spark" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Find video game sources: "GameBusiness.jp" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Here are a series of Japanese-language websites published by IID, Inc.. They also publish Fistbump News, which covers Riot Games titles, but these are their main three video game sites. Inside focuses on Japanese games, GameSpark on international titles, and GameBusiness on industry news (if you could believe it). The consensus from a a previous discussion seemed to lean in favor of reliablity, but thought I'd bring it up here again before I use it in an article. Inside and GameSpark both list an editorial team and authors are most often credited, which I consider a good sign for Japanese sources since this is not always the norm. GameSpark has 108 pages of developer interviews and organized a developer conference together with 4Gamer that most notably included Koei Tecmo, Atlas, and Konami. GameSpark have been cited by Siliconera, though I struggled to find anything for Inside (which I suspect is because of the name). In my opinion, these seem to be on par with other top Japanese sources so I would vote reliable―at least for GameSpark and Inside. IanTEB (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable for all. I don't see any reason to doubt these. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable for all Having used these three sources extensively in recent months, I can say they all appear high-quality, and the argument in favor of using them is solid. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable for all - I have used both Inside and Game Spark before. They have helped me greatly in some articles where i have used their write ups. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Reliable for all, with caveat Chinese Wikipedia community has curated them all and approved their use, with one single catch: Inside and GameSpark were personal websites before acquisition in 2009 so articles published before 2009 should be taken with a grain of salt. MilkyDefer 08:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliable for all - GameSpark has good coverage that might not be featured in other RS. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Gamurs sold Dot Esports and The Escapist to a "private investor"

• Find video game sources: "Dot Esports" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo
• Find video game sources: "The Escapist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Per Aftermath: "Gamurs Group, owner of sites like Destructoid, Twinfinite, and The Mary Sue, announced the sale of two of its sites in June. Both Dot Esports and The Escapist have recently been sold to 'a private investor' according to press releases, though it's not apparent whether both have been sold to the same investor." It is unclear who the private investor is so editors should probably keep an eye out when using those websites in case quality changes. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, good thing to keep an eye on. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that The Escapist started publishing articles pushing gambling and casinos. It's only two from late-June, but as said in here, definitely keep an eye on them. They hid the casino articles from their latest posts feed. And they're written by someone from ClickOut Media who has the position "Lead Informational Gambling Editor". Their bio on The Escapist is all about betting, gambling, sports betting, horse races, e.g.

That aside, the staff page for The Escapist is also out of date since I think every editor listed was laid off months ago. I confirmed three of four, but it looks like all four are gone. The new editor not listed, also uses generative AI at a different website they're an editor at. They've confirmed themselves using genAI to make images for articles for ReadWrite. That doesn't mean it's happening here yet, however. Snakester95 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Oofh. That is a bummer; Escapist use to also be decent for ttrpg/actual play articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

80 Level

Find video game sources: "80 Level" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

All I could find about the website on Wikipedia is this attempt to discuss it last year. There is no apparent editorial policy, the gaming coverage appears to lean into explosive or scathing (like so) and used on Wikipedia accordingly. From looking up the website online, I found a reddit thread from seven years ago where people accuse it of content stealing. Its main author I see, Theodore McKenzie, has no apparent journalist credentials on the LinkedIn linked from his 80.lv page. The same person was previously known on the website as Fedor Nikitin from Perm, Russia. Let's discuss it at last? Daisy Blue (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'm leaning unreliable. Nothing you've outlined is a good sign. Their About Us page only talks about followers, and spend a lot of time "promoting brands" and "helping people find talent" that makes them sound more like a marketing or job board type website? Nothing about editorial policy, standards, etc. They appear to have an established staff, though they're not outlined in any capacity besides name and job title. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I always thought L80 was a successful blogspam site, as far as "success" applies to these sites. Like they SEO hard and post anything about everything but there is some level of quality, generously-applied. But it never struck me as reliable or original. I haven't really looked into it though, so just a passing comment. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Found a recent reddit comment that accuses them of the same things as those people seven years ago. They even responded to it. On the other hand, looking at the current references to 80.lv on Wikipedia, it appears that most of the main space links are to interviews. If we assume that those are legitimate, does that make the source situational, or is an interview given to an unreliable source still okay to use on Wikipedia? Daisy Blue (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

superdope, yay or nay?

Find video game sources: "Superdope" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

i'm not a professional in this thing, so let's make it short

chinese news outlet, focused on games and gaming news. found them from this article on hero of law. not riddled with intrusive ads. looks reliable. is it? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 22:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

unrelated to the discussion part of this discussion, but is there a technical reason to subst the source template? i almost forgot to do that lol consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 22:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Indie Games Plus

Find video game sources: "Indie Games Plus" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Another similarly odd source, with most articles being written by two of the site cofounders Joel Couture and Jupiter Hadley, the former of who has contributed to Siliconera and Game Developer and the latter of who has written for Pocket Gamer. Do let me know what you guys think of this source. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I was of the impression that we already considered this one reliable since it was mostly the continuation of IndieGames.com, including a backport of all of the old site's articles. IceWelder [✉] 09:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about CNET at RSN that might be of interest

Someone from CNET has started a discussion on RSN about the sites reliability, see WP:RSN#CNET’s Reliability Status Should Be Reconsidered Ten Months After Ownership Change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Polygon

Find video game sources: "Polygon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Based on recent events, it may be time to finally reevaluate Polygon's reliability as a source. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, not great, though at the same time, it's pretty clearly labeled as "Advertiser Content", so it'd be pretty easy to just section off the content with that tag as unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, that text looks hella AI to me. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

If they're doing sponsored posts (labeled as "Advertiser Content" in that screenshot), then the Polygon entry should be updated to mention excluding those "articles" as sources per WP:SPONSORED. Sariel Xilo (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Posted this in the discord, but a similar article appeared on Kotaku too yesterday, with the only evidence of it being an ad being the "PROMO:" part in the headline...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As long as it is clearly distinguished from regular, non-promo content, its fine - our list should clearly indicate that these exist and promo content is not part of the RS of the work itself. I'm not seeing issues with Polygon's or Kotaku's not-marked-promo normal content yet to worry about any demotion or the like in the list. Masem (t) 12:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI, the conclusion we seem to be moving towards is consistent with the concurrent discussion and consensus at WT:RSP#Polygon as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

StopGame.ru

Find video game sources: "StopGame.ru" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Russian. Seems GR, but I'm not the person who can examine this properly. Official reviews are most likely fine, news need examination. Blogs section should be avoided per WP:BLOG. User reviews should be avoided too.

While the website is considered GR per the Russian version of VG:S, as pointed out by User:Hellknowz, "[the sources on the page] were copied from their "WP:video game articles" page where they were almost all added by a single user who briefly announced this on talk, which got 2 replies saying 'looks good, expanded version of VG/RS page'. This unfortunately means this isn't necessarily indicative of individual reliability as it wasn't actually discussed anywhere." Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 08:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's Play Archive

Find video game sources: "Let's Play Archive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo above your message.

In a past discussion, Let's Play was left as undecided. I don't work in this area (video games) but did discover that the Let's Play Archive has partnered with the Internet Archive, with the latter incorporating Let's Play's content into its database on digitized information. Thus, I suggest updating Let's Play Archive to reliable status on your source list. Rublamb (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't LPA a website where anyone can sign up and make them? Or am I confusing it with another website? Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This is currently on the inconclusive list. I am hoping to clear that up, one way or the other. From its website: "LPs show a video game being played while the player talks about what they're doing in commentary with video, screenshots or both." "All the LP threads on this website were originally posted on the Something Awful forums, in their dedicated Let's Play subforum". It looks like they originate in a self-published forum. However, I am trying to figure out if the process from forum to Let's Play Archive to Internet Archive means some of these can now be used for factual content. Or does this clear up any confusion about this content, so that Let's Play Archive can be blacklisted? Rublamb (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example of Let's Play on the internet archive. Rublamb (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable, WP:USERG. Hey, calm down! The archive is intended to be a repository of all LP threads from Something Awful. We won't disallow an LP entry into the archive based on quality. There is no editorial control beyond "it was posted to Something Awful". -- ferret (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable. It's cool that they're archiving this stuff, but it isn't useful to our work here on Wikipedia. Unless any specific let's play or individual let's player archived here were to be covered in RSes enough to be considered notable, in which case maybe a citation to this site would be justified by WP:ABOUTSELF, there's nothing usable here. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

So it should be moved from inconclusive to unreliable. Who has the authority to make that change? Rublamb (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Whoever assesses the consensus of this discussion. silviaASH (inquire within) 17:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Traxion.gg

Find video game sources: "Traxion.gg" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

What is the reliability of this source. It was owned by motorsport Games, a racing game developer until May 2024 when it was sold to Traxion.GG Ltd. The source is used 130 times on Wiki.. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Mein-MMO

Find video game sources: "Mein-MMO" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · LinkTo

Gaming news website, available in English and German.

A lot of the sources from this website are used on BLP pages, so establishing reliability is important. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, no one's replying. I did find a mention that Mein-MMO is a partner of GameStar, which is considered GR; this was mentioned on WP:Source assessment/CaseOh, where it was the reason for being reliable. @Pbrks, who added the reliability mention, seems trustworthy enough (69k edits), so I'm adding the source to the list. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 18:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

My opinion alone should not be enough to add it to the consensus as a reliable source. There is no rush here. Allow users to take their time on assessing the source. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable. We can do better. Looking through their staff page, I don't see anyone with an education, training, or a background in journalism or a related field, or experience at a reputable source. (With two exceptions, the director and head of editorial, who worked at GamePro. However, neither currently write much for the site.) Unlike some of their sister publications, there's no ethics policy. They write "news" articles like this, which is based on a single Reddit thread. In addition, at the bottom of every article is a banner that reads "This is an AI-powered translation. Some inaccuracies might exist." Even if the site were considered reliable, it should only be articles in German. But as I said, we can do better than relying on a site like this—especially for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

So I guess it's situational in German and unreliable in English. Definitely not BLP worthy, which is bad, because half of the articles where the website is cited are BLPs. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 23:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Vice/Waypoint

Find video game sources: "...site name..." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk · LinkSearch · URL... LinkTo

I notice that Vice's Waypoint is listed as reliable under 'other', with the newest linked discussion being from 2018. Vice Media shut down Waypoint in 2023, and it was bought and relaunched by venture capitalists in 2024 with significantly worse editorial oversight. A recent example of how this negatively affected their reliability is here:

• Person, Chris (21 July 2025). "Waypoint Writers Quit Over Removal Of Articles Related To New Steam Policy [Update] - Aftermath". aftermath.site. Retrieved 26 July 2025.
• Litchfield, Ted (21 July 2025). "Australian anti-porn group claims responsibility for Steam's new censorship rules in victory against 'porn sick brain rotted pedo gamer fetishists', and things only get weirder from there". PC Gamer. Retrieved 26 July 2025.

Waypoint now looks a lot like a zombie brand or content farm. The project page should probably be updated to indicate this change. Grayfell (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see any super glaring issues with Vice/Waypoint's recent articles prior to the incident with Ana Valens' Collective Shout articles getting taken down and triggering the departure of the majority of the editorial team under Savage Ventures. Those (stuff from last year up until July 20th) should in my opinion be allowed to be used, provided they're not used for any questionable or potentially sensitive claims (with the obvious exception of the Collective Shout situation, since that's been widely covered by multiple other RSes after the Steam and itch purges- I've got a draft article related to that in the works).

Other articles after that should be evaluated carefully, with the overall quality of the site pending further evaluation (like with Polygon and the Valnet purchase situation). silviaASH (inquire within) 01:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if it's glaring, but the prolific and shallow output of a small number of writers is at least a yellow flag.

Is there any reason not to update the page to let editors know it's not the same outlet it used to be?

Since Waypoint is no longer the same outlet, consensus for pre-2024 Waypoint doesn't apply to this new version. Explaining this would prevent confusion.

To put it another way, if this new Waypoint is also reliable source like the old Waypoint was, that's basically a coincidence. It should be evaluated on its own merits.

Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it we're basically now dealing with three versions of Waypoint- the one pre-2024 (considered reliable), the one from 2024 until the Collective Shout coverage debacle (which is probably not as good but at least situationally reliable), and the one after the departure of Dwayne Jenkins and most of the other writers (which is what I'm saying we may have to wait to evaluate properly). I think the pre-2024 and 2024 till July 2025 periods are probably both okay, the state of the publication after, we have to wait and see. That's my opinion at least. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the concerns. I don't see a direct problem with their content yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on. If someone finds an issue where using this as a source would harm the encyclopedia, I would want to know, so we can discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This article details the (lack of) editorial oversight and other issues at the 2024-present Waypoint. The new site clearly should not inherit the reliability of the old one. They're different entities, one a cynical masquerading of the other. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Situational - Unreliable post July 2025 I think it should be considered unreliable as the site was essentially kneecapped by the loss of its team. I have a very hard time believing it could possibly be reliable after that point, especially with blatant censorship by the higher ups having a catastrophic effect on journalistic integrity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)